Get DM history

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotated readOnlyHint already communicates that this is a safe read operation. The description adds a useful behavioral detail by stating that the filter is client-side, which clarifies how filtering behaves beyond the schema. It does not disclose output shape or pagination behavior, but the annotation lowers the burden for this dimension.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and resource, then adds the one cross-tool reference that matters. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only DM-history tool with fully described parameters and a readOnlyHint annotation, the description is nearly complete. It does not explain the return value format, and since there is no output schema, a bit more detail on what the returned messages look like could help, but nothing needed to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already fully documented. The description adds extra value by explaining that the filter parameter is client-side and consistent with get_channel_history, which gives the agent semantic context beyond the raw schema text.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb ('Read') and a clear resource: the DM conversation between the authenticated user and another user. It differentiates from the sibling get_channel_history by explicitly targeting direct messages, and the mention of the same filter further ties it to the channel-history family without ambiguity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description makes it obvious this is for direct-message history rather than channel history, and references get_channel_history for filter semantics. It does not explicitly say 'use get_channel_history for channels' or list when not to use this tool, but the context is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.